I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when the evidence given on the trial of Commandant Scheepers, who was executed at Graff Reinet on the 19th February, will be printed and circulated in accordance with the undertaking of the War Office, given several weeks ago; and what is the reason for the delay in the publication. May I be allowed to correct my Question. It was on the 19th January that this murder was committed.

This evidence will be printed with the Return of Martial Law Cases which I have promised to publish, and which is in course of preparation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information when we shall have the Return which was promised at the beginning of the Session?

The Return involves constant reference to South Africa by telegraph. I cannot present an incomplete or inadequate Return.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office will now publish the evidence adduced on the trial by court martial of Lieutenants Handcock and Morant, which led to their conviction of the murder of twelve Boer prisoners; and, having regard to the fact that that evidence has been for a considerable time in the possession of the War Office, will he explain why it has been withheld from the public.

It is not usual to publish such evidence, and I do not propose to make this case an exception.

But was not the evidence in the Press five weeks ago?

I really cannot say what the hon. Member saw in the Press. It is not usual to publish evidence given by courts martial, and I do not propose to do so in this case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the suggestion has reached him from a well-informed quarter that if an invitation were given to representatives of the corps of loyal Burghers to attend the ceremonies of His Majesty's Coronation, such an invitation would be gladly accepted; and, if so, whether he will inform the Colonial Secretary of the nature and source of the suggestion, to assist the latter right hon. Gentleman in the consideration he has promised to give the matter.

I have had no such intimation. Any such suggestion would in ordinary course be at once forwarded to the Colonial Secretary for his consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the steamship "Monadnock," belonging to Messrs. T. Hogan and Son, of 21, State Street, New York, has been chartered to carry hay from St. John, New Brunswick, to Cape Town; whether she has already sailed for St. John; whether there are no British-owned vessels suitable and available for such service; or for what other reason preference was given to a a foreign-owned vessel.

The Canadian Government buys and ships Canadian hay to South Africa as an agent of this Department. I am not aware of the chartering of the "Monadnock" by the Canadian Government, nor has the-High Commissioner for Canada any knowledge of such chartering.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when it came to the knowledge of the War Office that the punishment of shot drill was inflicted on prisoners in the military ceils at Lichfield till 17th February last; on how many prisoners from the time of the abolition of shot drill in the Army, in April, 1899, till 17th February last was this punishment inflicted, and for what periods in each case; who were the officers responsible for the infliction of this punishment, and what notice, if any, has been taken of their conduct, and what compensation has been given to the men on whom this shot drill has been thus inflicted; and will he state what explanation, if any, has the War Office to offer for the continuous practice of this custom at Lichfield for four years after its abolition in the Army, and in what other military prisons has this punishment been inflicted: and, whether he will cause to be circulated the Report for which he has asked with reference to the infliction of sentences of shot drill, and the results of the inquiry he directed.

I have nothing to add to the information which I have already given to the hon. Member.

As a matter of order I wish to draw your attention Mr. Speaker to the answer I have just received. I put down a Question, not at all cognate to any I have previously asked, and the right hon. Gentleman tells me he has no additional information to give me.

If the right hon. Gentleman says so, the Question whether or not he should say so cannot be discussed. I cannot judge whether the answer is right or wrong. It is an answer to the Question on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any official representations have been made to the War Office with regard to the inadequacy of the clerical staff allowed to officers commanding regimental districts; and whether it is intended to remedy this alleged deficiency.

In some cases representations to this effect have been made. General officers have already power to grant extra duty pay to temporary clerks if there is pressure of work, and in certain cases where general officers have found it impossible to obtain adequate military clerical assistance the employment of civilian clerks has been authorised.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the terms of reference to the Committee appointed by the Admiralty to inquire into matters relating to the subvention of merchant steamers for purposes of; war; whether he can give the names, of members of the Committee; whether the report and evidence submitted will be laid before Parliament; and whether arrangements can be made to postpone taking in Supply Vote 8, Section 3, which includes the charge for subsidies to merchant steamers, until the Report and evidence taken by the Committee are in the hands of Members.

The Committee has been appointed by the Admiralty with limited reference. It is charged to ascertain in what way, and at what cost steamers of greater speed than those now employed, and of greater efficiency for war purposes, may be obtained in return for subsidies paid, and also to ascertain and report as to what modification of the existing form of agreement, and what addition to the present rate of subsidy may be necessary in order to prevent the transfer to a foreign flag without permission of the Admiralty of any ship which receives or has received a subsidy. The names of the Committee as at present constituted are as follows:—The Earl of Camperdown, Vice-Admiral FitzGerald, Professor J. H. Biles, Mr. Robert Chalmers, C.B., representing the Treasury, Mr. Buxton Forman, representing the Post Office, and Captain Tupper, R.N., Secretary. I cannot at the present time say whether it will be possible to present the Report and evidence to the House. The question of whether it will be possible to postpone the discussion on Vote 8, Section 3, so as to allow of the discussion of the Report of the Committee must depend upon the date on which that report is received.

May I ask whether, under those terms, the policy of paying subsidies is open to review?

No, Sir. The reference is a limited reference. Assuming the policy to be continued, the consideration of the circumstances under which that policy can be continued in the most effective way is complying with the terms of reference.

I bog to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the creation of a fleet of Royal Naval Reserve Cruisers, by the adoption of a policy of subventions to merchant steamers, was recommended in 1887, by the Admiralty to the Treasury, as having pecuniary advantage by serving to limit the necessity for the construction of fast war vessels to protect the commerce of the country; and, seeing that the total amount of subventions paid in pursuance of that policy since 1887 inclusive, exceeds half a million sterling, whether he can state approximately what has been the pecuniary advantage derived from that expenditure due to limitations put by the Admiralty on the construction of fast war vessels to protect commerce, as consequence of the adoption of the policy so recommended.

Whatever may have been the original policy which led to the subvention of Merchant Cruisers, it is considered by the Admiralty that definite functions could be assigned to such steamers in a future naval war, and that they should therefore, if compatible with a reasonable expenditure, be retained independently of any such result as that which was anticipated by the Committee in 1887. In answer to the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's Question, I should imagine that the subsidising of these vessels has not had any serious effect in diminishing the expenditure upon fast cruisers, the armoured cruiser having become a specially important type of vessel capable of rendering services which could not be performed by any mercantile cruiser.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the English shipping companies enter the new trans-Atlantic combination on precisely the same terms as the German and American lines.

I am afraid the only answer I can give to this Question is that the Government have no official information on this subject.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government has no information whatever with regard to this tremendous event?

I said no "official" information.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade, under the general powers of control and enforcement of the Merchant Shipping Act given to the Board under Sections 713 to 723 of the Act, has power to require the disclosure of any agreement entered into by a qualified British owner of a registered British ship for the transfer or transmission of any such ship to any person or body of persons who may not be qualified under the Act to own or be registered as owner thereof, and especially power to require the production of any declarations made or to be made under Section 25 of the Act; whether the White Star and other companies who have entered into the American combination have been or will be required to disclose the terms of their agreements with the American syndicate, or to produce any declarations under Sections 25 and 26 of the Act, or other documents to show the status of the persons who will, under those agreements, acquire a share in the control or beneficial interest in the ships concerned; and whether he will take steps either to enforce the existing law or to obtain further powers by legislation to prevent evasion or infraction of the Act.

The Board of Trade have not, under Sections 713 to 723 of the Merchant Shipping Act, as the Department to undertake the general superintendence of all matters relating to Merchant Shipping, power to require the disclosure of any agreement or the production of any declaration such as those referred to by the hon. Member. Section 25 merely prescribes the nature of the declaration which must be made by a transferee before he can be registered as the owner of a British ship. With respect to the last paragraph of the Question, I have no reason for thinking that further powers are required for preventing evasion or infraction of the Act, but, as I stated on Friday, the possible effects of the proposed shipping combination are engaging the serious attention of His Majesty's Government.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Section 25 does not refer to the making of a declaration when either a ship or a share therein is transferred?

I believe it does, but only where the transfer is to a British owner.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government has retained the power of utilising the vessels of the English shipping companies in time of war, and whether they have secured or will be able to secure the same right over the vessels at present in construction.

The Admiralty has retained the power of utilising in time of war a certain number of vessels belonging to the Mercantile Marine. The agreements by which the services of these ships are secured also provide for a similar lien over vessels in construction for the respective companies.

Will the rights of His Majesty's Government be affected by the fact of these vessels having passed, if they have passed, into foreign ownership?

That Question has been already answered. We have had an assurance that these ships have not passed from the control of the Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman lay a copy of the contract on the Table of the House?

There can be no objection to that.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any Regulation has been promulgated by the Admiralty depriving engineer officers of the control of electrical hydraulic machinery above deck, and giving charge thereof to torpedo and gunnery lieutenants; and whether any such Regulation has been withdrawn after a few weeks for further consideration; or, if not, what steps have been and are being taken by the Admiralty with reference to any such Regulation.

There is no foundation for the statement that the Regulation referred to by the Hon. Member has been withdrawn. When the decision of the Board to make the change was finally adopted, no orders were issued to the Fleet, because the Regulations necessary to carry the new plan into effect were being specially considered by a Committee appointed for that purpose. The Committee have now made their Report, and after it has been duly considered, the necessary Regulations will be drawn up. When that is done, orders will be issued to the Fleet in due course.

Is it the intention of the Admiralty to convert gunnery lieutenants into mechanical engineers?

It is the intention of the Admiralty that they should qualify for this particular work.

By what means?

That is the matter on which the Committee reported, and the necessary Regulations are at this moment being considered by the Admiralty.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the nature of the defects in the machinery of H.M.S. "Spartiate," which have prevented her thirty hours trial being completed; and can he state what were the revolutions of the engines and pressure on gauges at the time when the defects developed.

I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether H.M.S. "Spartiate" has broken down in her recent trials; and whether he can give any information on the subject.

The" Spartiate "was prevented from carrying out her thirty hours trial by the heating of the eccentric straps of the low pressure link gear. The revolutions of the engines at the time were 113.2, and the steam pressure on the low pressure receivers' gauges was twelve pounds.

Have the condensers been at fault this time?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that assistant paymasters in His Majesty's Navy, when promoted at thirty-one years of age to paymasters, receive 14s. per day; while engineers between the ages of thirty-one and thirty-eight receive only 12s. per day; and, seeing that doctors on entering the Navy receive 14s. 6d. per day, while the engineer after five years' experience as assistant receives 10s. per day, can he state the reason for such difierences in pay.

The statement that engineers between the ages of thirty-one and thirty-eight receive only 12s. a day is not correct, the average rates of pay of engineer officers being as follow :—At thirty-one. 11s. a day with an allowance of 1s. 6d. a day for change of engines; total 12s. 6d. At thirty-three, 12s. a day, with the same allowance, or 13s. 6d. a day in all. Between thirty-six and thirty-seven (which, as I explained to the hon. Member last week, is the average age for promotion to Chief Engineer), 16s. a day, together with the allowance of Is. 6d. a day; total 17s. 6d. Between thirty-seven and thirty-eight, 17s. a day, with the same allowance, or 18s. 6d. a day in all. As regards the latter part of the Question, the pay of surgeons on entry has recently been raised from 11s. 6d. a day to 14s. a day (not 14s. 6d., as stated by the hon. Member), and the reasons for this increase have already been given fully to the House. The reasons were peculiar to the medical service, and therefore the increase in pay was limited to this branch of the service.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any branch or section of the Naval Intelligence Department is exclusively employed in collecting, digesting, and tabulating all necessary information respecting merchant shipping and operations of sea commerce all over the world for the use of the Admiralty and the guidance of the senior officers of His Majesty's Fleet in the event of war; and, if so, what is the constitution of such branch or section, and what is annually spent upon it.

The special duty of collecting and tabulating information of the nature referred to in the Question is assigned to a special officer in the Intelligence Department acting under the Director of Naval Intelligence. The rank of the officer referred to is that of Post Captain, and he receives the pay and allowances of his rank. He has the assistance of the Civil Staff of the Department of the Director of Naval Intelligence, and it is further proposed to furnish him with a special assistant. Much of the information received and tabulated by this officer is furnished by the Board of Trade.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will cause an inquiry to be made as to the refusal of Joseph McMahon second cooper, O, No. 343,437, Royal Naval Barracks, Devonport, to contribute to the support of his wife and thus prevent her from becoming a burden on the rates of the Limerick Union.

The case referred to by the hon. Member has already been brought to the notice of the Admiralty, who have called the attention of the man's commanding officer to it. As the Admiralty have no legal power to authorise compulsory deductions from a man's pay for the maintenance of his relations, they are unable to take further action in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that consequent on defective rainfalls Cutch and the surrounding districts have been visited during the last four years by consecutive famines, what steps have been taken or will be taken to construct canal and other irrigation works from the Indus to diminish the sufferings of the people, encourage agriculture, and restore to cultivation large tracts of and land.

I am not aware that any project for constructing a canal from the Indus to the native state of Cutch has ever been proposed, and the physical configuration of the country would probably render its execution impossible. In the British districts of Sindh, which adjoins Cutch, the question of extending irrigation from the Indus is receiving continuous attention.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he has had under consideration the question of connecting Bombay and Sindh by direct railway communication, so as to give facilities for traffic to and from Cutch, Sindh, Gujurat, Purkar, and the adjacent districts, which have suffered during the last two famines from the insufficient supply of food both for men and cattle; and, seeing that the lack of such communication prevents the development of the mineral wealth of Cutch, at present restricted to the alum mines at Muth, and that this line would reduce the distance for transporting troops and supplies from Bombay to the frontier, whether he will take care that the objections of the Rao of Cutch do not prevent its formation through his State; and whether there is reason to hope the Indian Government will sanction the scheme, settle definitely the route through Cutch, and entertain offers from private companies desirous of taking up the construction and working of the proposed line.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me on the 16th July last year, to a similar Question asked on his behalf by the hon. Member for Dundee, when I stated that there are other railway projects of greater urgency awaiting execution, and that I was not prepared to set them aside in favour of the proposed line through Cutch, which only promises a return of 2 per cent. upon the cost of its construction. Since that reply was given, the Government of India have allotted a sum of Rs 2 lakhs for expenditure in the present financial year on a railway, which, if continued, will form the first section of the proposed Cutch-Bombay line; but I cannot undertake to say when any further steps will be taken in the prosecution of the entire scheme.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether in the correspondence with the Government of India, the Viceroy in Council has expressed an opinion on the proper terms of service of the British troops; whether, when the correspondence is completed, the written opinions of the members of the Viceroy's Council upon the terms of service will be laid upon the Table.

Beyond a wish to extend by bounty the service of a certain number of men, no opinion has been expressed by the Viceroy in Council on the proper terms of service of the British troops, nor am I aware of the existence of any written opinions of members of the Viceroy's Council on this subject.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view of relieving the growing anxiety in commercial circles and preventing changes that may prove unnecessary in methods of business, he can now state what changes he intends to make in the proposed increase of the stamp tax.

What I propose is this. As hon. Members are aware, the stamp duty on cheques is paid for, in the first instance, by the banker, and then charged by him to his customer's account. It is the practice in London, and also very largely in the country, when a customer sends his pass book to be made up, to return to him with the pass book the cheques which he has drawn. I propose that this shall always be done—and that then the customer, on forwarding to a collector of Inland Revenue, or presenting at the nearest Money Order Office the cheques which he has drawn under £2, shall be entitled to be paid the extra 1d. on all such cheques. The result will be to relieve all cheques under £2 of the new duty.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the representatives of the Post Office or the customers will keep the cheques?

Some arrangement will have to be made for a check on postmasters, of course. I will consider that.

May I ask whether the bankers of London have recommended this extraordinary course?

I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman calls it an extraordinary proposal. It is not at all impracticable, I think. It is what is done at present with regard to income tax on premiums of insurance, only it will be done in a much easier and simpler way.

Will any opportunity be given of discussing the salaries of the staff required at the different offices to carry this out?

The present staff can perfectly well do it.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that flour is used in the manufacture of grape sugar (glucose), which is already taxed in proportion to its value as compared with ordinary sugar; whether he is prepared to make an exemption of flour so used from the proposed new duty on flour, or as an alternative to allow a rebate of the existing excise duty on grape sugar; and, whether, failing such an exemption or rebate, the effect will be that imported grape sugar will only pay £2 15s. per ton import duty against £3 5s. per ton paid by the home-manufactured article.

My attention has been called to this matter. I do not think any exemption would be possible—but I will consider whether the alternative suggested in the Question could be adopted.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of children at present in Metropolitan workhouses and infirmaries.

The Returns for the week ending 12th instant give the numbers as follows—workhouses, 1,235; infirmaries, 1,739. These totals include respectively, 670 and 647 children under three years of age.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the number of children at present suffering from ophthalmia and ringworm respectively in Metropolitan Poor Law schools and institutions.

According to the latest information in my possession the number of children suffering from ophthalmia and ringworm, respectively, was—413 and 325 in Metropolitan Poor Law schools, and 351 and 294 in Metropolitan workhouses and infirmaries.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Post Office telephone authorities four or five months ago laid telephone wires through the whole or a part of the Paddington district, but have not yet connected the houses, with the wires, and that the residents in the district have applied to have their houses connected, and have complained of the inconvenience caused by the delay; whether he will state the reasons for the delay and the date when it is proposed to complete the telephonic system in the district referred to.

A Post Office Telephone Exchange is being constructed in Bird Street, Oxford Street, to serve a district bounded on the East by Regent Street, and extending between Piccadilly and Regent's Park. It will also include a considerable part of Paddington and Bayswater. Owing to difficulties in the acquisition of the premises, it has not yet been possible to commence the necessary structural alterations and additions, but it is hoped to do so in a few weeks. These alterations, and the installation of the Exchange plant, will necessarily occupy some months, and it will not be possible to open the Exchange before the end of the present year. In the meantime the work of laying and jointing the cables in the underground pipes which have recently been laid is proceeding, in order that the connection of subscribers' houses may be completed very rapidly, as soon as the Exchange is ready to be opened.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state when the lease of the present Merthyr Post Office expires; whether ground has been acquired for a new Post Office; and, so, when will the new building be commenced.

The lease of the present Post Office at Merthyr will expire on the 1st of May next, and arrangements have been made to provide a temporary office in Globe-land Street. The site for the new office in John Street has been acquired, but it is not likely that the building will be commenced during the present financial year.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Commission sitting in Edinburgh under the Private Bill Procedure Act will hold any portion of their sittings in Aberdeen; and, if not, whether any local inquiry will be held by them there.

No, Sir, I understand the two Orders relating to Buckie and Aberdeen were first on the list for inquiry; the Buckie inquiry is now over, and the Aberdeen inquiry is proceeding at Edinburgh.

May I ask whether an application has been made to have the inquiry at Aberdeen, and whether a large number of witnesses has been sent to Edinburgh at great expense and inconvenience.

I cannot make any further statement on this question.

I beg to give notice that in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I will take the first opportunity of calling attention to the matter, and protesting against the action taken.

May I ask whether the sole object of the Act was not to secure that these inquiries should be held locally?

Order, order The Question on the Paper has been answered.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether there is anything in the rules made under the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act to prevent Commissioners appointed under that Act for the purpose of inquiring into a number of private Bills from holding their sittings, for the purposes of one or more Bills, in one place, and, for the purposes of another Bill or other Bills, in another place, with a view to the convenience of promoters, opponents and witnesses; and whether, if this be the case, he will represent to the Commissioners recently appointed to inquire into the Aberdeen Tramways Bill and the Buckie Harbour Bill the desirability of their transferring their sittings to Aberdeen as soon as they begin their inquiry into those Bills.

There is nothing in the rules or in the Act to prevent Commissioners from holding their inquiry in different places, as suggested by the right hon. Member. In fact, this course was adopted in one of last year's inquiries, which was held partly in Glasgow, to settle a Glasgow scheme, and partly at Ayr, to settle schemes in Ayr, Ardrossan, and Irvine; and another inquiry (which ultimately proved unnecessary) was appointed to be held partly in Edinburgh and partly in Greenock. Last year's experience was not considered entirely favourable to the alteration of a place of inquiry or to the holding of an inquiry away from convenient and central localities. As regards the Buckie and Aberdeen Orders, I understand that inquiry into the former has now closed, and that into the latter is now proceeding at Edinburgh.

I wish to say that in consequence of the answer, I shall take an early opportunity to call attention to the subject—if possible, on the Scottish Estimates.

May I ask whether the Act does not give full powers to the Commissioners to appoint the place of meeting, and not to the Scottish Office?

The Act says the Commissioners.

In whose interests was the locality chosen? Can the hon. Member deny that it was in the interests of the Edinburgh lawyers?

No. He cannot deny that it was.

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of 11th April damage to the nets of two boats, both fishing in Dingle Bay, was caused by one or more steam trawlers, and that the loss was properly reported at Caher-civeen; and, seeing that the ss. "Helga" is not able to patrol the whole coast, whether the assistance of another steamer will be given for the next two months at least, until the spring fishery is over.

The question of providing additional protection to the Irish fisheries against the depredations of trawlers is engaging attention.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether: he is aware that the town rates of Monaghan have not been collected for the past three years, and can he state who is responsible for this neglect in the collection of the rates.

The last town rate collected in Monaghan was in 1900, in respect of the nine months ended the 31st March of that year. No rate has since been struck. The Town Council now proposes, however, to strike another rate. The Local Government Board has no jurisdiction as regards the assessment or collection of town rates. The proper persons to take action, paradoxical as it may seem, are the ratepayers.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Land Commission in recent years have selected Killarney for the hearing of appeals coming from the rural districts of Kanturk, Newmarket, and Millstreet; and whether, in view of the inconvenience and expense caused to solicitors and clients, the Land Commissioners will consider the advisability of hearing these cases in Cork or other central place.

The localities mentioned in the Question are all nearer to Killarney than to Cork. The matter is one for determination by the Land Commissioners, who, I have no doubt, will consult the convenience of all parties concerned, so far as possible. I have brought the hon. Member's suggestion under the notice of the Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any persons have been made amenable for the malicious injuries inflicted on four horses, the property of Mr. John McInerney, of Ennistymon.

Every effort has been made by the police to clear up this case. No person has yet been made amenable. I ought to add that this case was not, in respect of cruelty, akin to the revolting case to which the hon. and gallant Member for East Antrim drew attention on Friday.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there are any vacancies in the Criminal Investigation Department which would suit the Members for Antrim?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that he saw no evidence that Sergeant Sheridan had burned Mrs. Quinlan's hay, he yet recommended compensation to the mother of Con Bray, whom Sheridan prosecuted and convicted for the offence; and, in view of the fact that Murphy, who was imprisoned on the testimony of Sergeant Sheridan for the mutilation and killing of Michael Cregan's ass in the same locality, was afterwards compensated on the recomendation of the Chief Secretary, will he recommend that the Constabulary authorities, or whatever other Department compensated Mrs. Bray and Murphy, shall refund their respective moneys to the tax-payers which were levied on them for this compensation, seeing that the various sums can be ascertained from the books of the rate collector of that time and from the books of the gentleman who was then secretary of the Grand Jury, which are now in the custody of the secretary of the Limerick County Council.

I said. Sir, on the 22nd that I had no evidence to prove that Sheridan burned Mrs. Quinlan's hay. I pointed out the difficulty of tracing the ratepayers nearly four years ago. On the merits of whether the sums collected should be repaid to the County Council I gave no opinion, but expressed my readiness to consider a request from that Body. I have nothing more to add.

I will furnish the right hon. Gentleman with a complete list of the ratepayers who paid four years ago.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the names and addresses of the nine men who report from their observations on the fairs, for the guidance of the Land Commissioners, as to the prices of stock, and to what religous denominations these reporters belong; how many fairs in the year they attend; how many reports are they bound to furnish; and is the sum of £200 previously specified the sum paid to all collectively of the year's services, or does it mean £200 for each reporter.

The reports made by the Inspectors are made to the Department of Agriculture, not to the Land Commissioners. I have communicated their names and addresses to the hon. Member. Their religious denominations are not known to the Department. Last year the number of fairs attended by the reporters was 143; the number of reports made was 308. The payments to them, collectively, average about £800 per annum, including travelling expenses.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reports of these officials are repudiated by sellers of stock?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a decision of Mr. W. E. Dunsterville, Resident Magistrate, at the Strabane Petty Sessions, on the 14th April inst., in which he refused to commit to St. Catherine's Certified Industrial School at Strabane a little girl named Mary Dempsey, who was otherwise admittedly a fit subject for such committal, on the sole ground that he had no legal power to do so because she was under six years of age, although the manager of the schools was willing to take her free of public charge; and whether, inasmuch as there is not any provision in the Industrial Schools Acts to warrant such a decision, and children under six years of age have been frequently committed to industrial schools, he will be good enough to state on what grounds this child, whose mother was then in prison, was debarred from being rescued from the streets and sent to an industrial school.

The magistrate stated the grounds for his decision in court. It is not for me to criticise its validity.

I asked on what ground the magistrate based his decision. Is there anything in the Act of Parliament to exclude children under six years of age?

I have said the magistrate stated his decision. It is not for me to say whether or not he rightly interprets the Act.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire further. This child of four is a perfect waif. She cannot appeal from the decision, and there will be no redress unless the right hon. Gentleman sees that the magistrate is set right.

If I find it possible I will further inquire into the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the quarter sessions for the Midleton Division of the County Cork, held last week at Midleton, the Recorder of Cork informed the grand jury that the only case to go before them was one of petty larceny; and if he can say why the Midleton district has been proclaimed under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act.

I am afraid I cannot supplement the statement already made by me in this matter.

Is the object of these proclamations to create crime?

Order, order!

May I ask why, in view of the peaceful condition of Queen's County, that has not been included in the proclamation?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will undertake that, before carrying out at the expense of Irish taxpayers any of the recommendations made by the Committee which investigated the alleged grievances of the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Irish representatives will be afforded an opportunity of discussing the recommendations.

Some of the recommendations could only be given effect to by legislation, which would necessarily give an opportunity for discussion. To carry out the remaining recommendations not requiring legislation, an additional sum of money would have to be placed on the Estimates. The Estimates for the current year contain no such provision. The Question of the hon. Member is, therefore premature.

But is it not possible that some of the changes for which legislation is not required might be made after the Estimates had been passed? In that case we should have no opportunity of discussing them.

I have no immediate intention of asking for any provision to be made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many of the county inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary and how many district inspectors are Roman Catholics and Protestants respectively.

Four of the county inspectors are Roman Catholics and thirty-three Protestants. Sixty district inspectors are Roman Catholics and 154 Protestants.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is in contemplation to withdraw the contract for Irish telegraph messengers' boots from Irish manufacturers; and, if so, seeing that this work is for an Irish Department, whether he will use his efforts to secure that the contracts be kept in that country.

The Irish tenders for the supply of telegraph messengers' boots in Ireland were this year as much as 1.5 per cent. higher than the English tenders after allowing for the cost of carriage, and consequently the Postmaster General has felt it necessary to consider the question of placing the contract elsewhere for this year.

Is it not a fact that tenders for supplying these boots have recently been asked for, and was not the manufacturer whose tender was the lowest a Dublin firm, and will the hon. Gentleman see that the lowest Irish tender be accepted?

Certainly not.

But tenders were asked for only from Ireland, and is it not usual to accept the lowest?

No, Sir; tenders were asked for from Irish manufacturers, but it was found that they were so much higher than the English tenders that they could not possibly be accepted.

One further Question——

Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss the matter now. The Question on the Paper has been fully answered.

I only want to ask——

I have told the hon. Member he is not in order.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Congested Districts Board to build a pier at Rossminna, Westport, County Mayo.

The Board has no present intention of constructing a pier at this place.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state in how many cases were caretakers' notices served recently on the tenants on the Ellis Estate, near Abbey-feale, in the county of Limerick.

The number of such notices obtained at quarter sessions was thirty-three.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Power, of Dungarvan, County Waterford, has been removed from the Commission of the Peace by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; and whether he can state the date on which Mr. Power was sworn in as a Justice of the Peace.

Mr. Power has been removed from the Commission of the Peace. Upon his election as Chairman of the Dungarvan Urban District Council, he became, ipso facto, a Justice of the Peace. He had not taken the magisterial oaths, but he was by law a magistrate, and could at any time have acted as such on taking the oaths.

Had this gentleman been sworn in as a magistrate?

I have said he had not.

Will pro-Boer magistrates be treated in the same way?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that in October, 1882, the Government of the day promised, on an early date, to introduce a measure with a view of defining and limiting the power of fine and committal for contempt of court; and, having regard to the expressions used by Lord Russell of Killowen from the judicial bench in April, 1896, in the case of Payne v. Cooper, with respect to applications for contempt of court and the decisions thereon, whether the Government will take into consideration the propriety at an early day of proposing legislation on this subject themselves or of affording facilities for the passage through Parliament of the Bill on this subject introduced by the hon. Member for North Leitrim.

I can hold out no hope to the hon. Gentleman of being able to find time for a measure on this subject during the course of the present session, nor do I regard myself as being a universal legatee of pledges made in the Parliament of 1882.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state when he proposes to nominate the Committee on Municipal Trading.

I should be glad to see the Committee to which my hon. friend refers appointed as soon as possible; but I am afraid that in the present condition of public business I cannot find time for a debated Motion on the subject.

On behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state the intentions of the Government in regard to the "Whitsuntide recess; and what business it is proposed to take on Thursday and Friday and during next week.

It is proposed to take discussion on the Rules tomorrow and Thursday. I can make no statement about Friday. With regard to the Whitsuntide holidays, I regret to say that I see very little prospect of our being able to extend them beyond the Thursday after Whit Sunday.

The House would be glad to know what course the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take with regard to the Education and Finance Bills.

I do not gather that that is in the Question on the Paper.

The last words were intended to cover it.

Well, as I have already announced, we propose to take the Second Reading of the Education Bill on Monday, and the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on the following Monday.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether only one more day is to be allowed for the consideration of the Procedure Rules; whether the House will have the opportunity of having a Third Reading debate on the Rules; and whether, in preparation for this, and in consideration of the number of changes made in the Rules as originally framed, he will circulate a revised version for the information of hon. Members.

I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state, for the convenience of many Members, the order in which he proposes to take the remaining Rules of Procedure which are now on the Paper; and if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with all of those Rules, and to press them to a conclusion.

I do not think that, beyond the opportunity which would necessarily be given when the Motion is made that the new Rules be Standing Orders of the House, it is not necessary to give further facilities for a general debate. I may remind the House that we have already taken three weeks of Parliamentary time on these Rules, and perhaps more time has been spent in their discussion than is absolutely necessary. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member that the Rules should be re-printed in consequence of the numerous changes made, I think he will find all the information he desires on the Blue Paper, which is extremely complete. Of course, there would be no difficulty in re-printing the Rules, but that would lead to a multiplicity of Papers, which would be rather confusing instead of clearing the way. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, I have to say that we must evidently proceed as fast as possible with the block of Rules, which do not come into operation until they are all passed, but which do then come into operation together. As soon as that moment is reached, it will be proposed to make them Standing Orders. After the House has disposed of the one now under discussion, the other Rules of the block will be taken in the following order :—Questions, Motions for Adjournment, Private Bill business, Quorum of the House, Standing Committee, and Sittings of the House. These are all embraced in the block which it is proposed to move together as Standing Orders. I do not propose, however, to place the remaining Rules before other important business which seems likely to put a heavy strain on the time and attention of the House.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say the Question Rule will betaken next, but I did not gather in what order the rest are to be taken. There are on the Paper this afternoon four Orders of the Day relating to Questions of Procedure. Do I understand that they are to be taken as they stand? It will be a great convenience to the House to know exactly in what order these Rules are to be taken.

I did give the information my right hon. friend desires, but perhaps he did not catch it. [The right hon. Gentleman repeated his statement.] I propose to go on with the Rules required to complete the block of Orders relating to the arrangement of business, and I shall take them in the order I have named.

That is the order in which they stand on the separate Paper.

I think that is so.

You give precedence to the four Orders of the Day relating to Procedure. But the Rule relating to Questions is not mentioned there. Do you propose to take it before the first four Orders—which deal with—(1) Supply Rules; (2) Sittings of the House; (3) Second and Third Readings; and (4) Order in Debate.

The Government have the right to arrange their business as they choose. They put down first the adjourned debate on the proposed new Standing Order, and then it is intimated that the further proposals appear on a separate Paper. There the right hon. Gentleman will find a series of Motions to come on next.

I hope that for the convenience of the House it will be possible in future to put the Rules on the Orders of the Day in the order in which it is intended they shall be taken.

I think the course we have adopted is the most intellgible to the House, but if the right hon. Gentleman can suggest any alteration I shall be glad to consider it.

I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is not in accordance with the practice of the House, immediately after the consideration of a new Standing Order, to put the Question, "That this be a Standing Order of the House."

Not necessarily immediately after the Resolution is passed, but before it becomes a Standing Order it must be ordered to be a Standing Order.

Then do I understand that all the new Standing Orders may be lumped together and passed as one Resolution?

I am not clear whether that has been done before or not, but it is clear that the House could do it.

It has been done before.

Will the block of Rules which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned come into operation immediately after we have adopted them?

Yes.

I wish. Sir, to ask if the Amendment which stands in my name would, if now submitted, exclude other Amendments on the Paper referring to an earlier part of the Rule.

I have ruled the other Amendments referred to out of order.

Do I understand that you rule my Amendment out of order.

Yes.

It is extremely difficult to hear. Sir, but do I understand you to rule both the Amendments of the hon. Member for Dundee and that which stands in my name on the Paper to be out of order?

Yes.

May I ask on what ground?

The House had already decided that no debate on a Vote on Account should go beyond the one day, and in view of that decision I hold that the question ought not to be again raised.

said that the object of the Amendment which he now had to move was to eliminate from the Rule the proposal for the automatic or guillotine closure of Votes in Supply. In moving it he wished to guard if possible the rights of other Members who might desire to move Amendments to subsequent words, and he therefore hoped that the Speaker, in putting the Question from the Chair, would do so in such a manner as not to exclude such Amendments.

In regard to what the hon. Member has just said, I will take the course which he suggests, but I am bound to say that his Amendment raises almost the same question as that which was discussed last year when the system was introduced of voting on Classes of Supply. In view of that, I would suggest that there is no necessity for prolonged debate.

said he had no desire to prolong the debate, and he therefore would not enter into any lengthy argument with regard to this most important portion of the Rule. Still, he thought the argument ought to be clearly stated to the House once more, before sanction was given to that particular form of procedure. His view of the conduct of business in Supply had always been the same. He had supported the Government in assigning a given quantity of time to Supply, and he had always held that the period allotted was adequate. Still, having watched the conditions under which Supply was discussed, he had come to the conclusion that it would be far better if a more elastic method were adopted in determining the total amount of time to be given to Supply during the session. His theory was that neither the Leader of the House nor the responsible Minister intervened with sufficient frequency in the conduct of business. He felt they ought to use more frequently their friendly and conciliatory powers of closure, which sometimes were more effective than the actual closure itself. He did not suggest that there should be fussy or dictatorial interference on their part, but he would recommend a business-like intervention suggesting that, after there had been a reasonable amount of discussion, the time had arrived for taking a division. He thought that would secure much better progress of business. He had fresh in his recollection the scene which occurred on the occasion of the first automatic closure in 1887, on the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. That seemed to him to be a most disastrous spectacle. He had previously urged his hon. friends from Ireland not to prolong the discussion so as to bring about that automatic guillotine, and he was disgusted with the scene which followed. He was doubly disgusted with the scenes which occurred on the Home Rule Bill of 1893, and when the right hon. Gentleman first introduced this Rule as a sessional Order, in 1896, he said he would never again support a Government in proposing the automatic closure of a Bill. He thought the right hon. Gentleman, and other Members of the House, had frequently pointed out that the only way in which they could secure the proper use of the time allotted to Supply was by the appointment of some representative body which should be able to determine questions of this kind, and which would have the practical assent of all sections of the House. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman must see it was an odious and undesirable form of procedure which this Rule suggested, and that it would be better to revert to the old plan of trying to carry out the business in Supply by some proper distribution of the time, and by the constant interposition of Ministers of the Crown, and of the Leaders of the Opposition, with a view to bringing about a reasonably early termination of discussion, so that all substantial issues could be raised in the course of a session before they arrived at anything like the 5th of August, when the automatic closure was to come in force.

I take it that we are not now discussing whether the number of days allotted to Supply shall be further limited, for it has been decided by the House that twenty-three days shall be the whole period set apart for that purpose. The only question we have before us is the precise machinery by which that principle, already affirmed by the House, is to be carried into effect. I will not, therefore, repeat the arguments which have already been advanced on this point. I take it the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Government that we have allotted a suffcient time to Supply.

Yes, in an average year.

But he proposes to cut out certain words from our Rule—words which are intended to give effect to the Government views. If those words are cut out, what is to put in their place? The hon. Member suggested, so far as I heard, nothing except that the Leader of the House should come down every Thursday, and exercise his powers of persuasion, for whatever they may be worth, at short intervals, to induce the House to better allocate its time to the different subjects under discussion. That would be all very well if it were likely to succeed in practice, but it is quite evident that efforts by the Leader of the House to persuade hon. Members to take a particular course can be of little service. For instance, I have been doing my best to induce the House to arrange its time for discussing these new Rules, and I have failed. My powers of persuasion have proved utterly inadequate, and it has been evident that they have had little or no good effect. I do not say that if representatives of various sections met round a table, and it was understood that not more than twenty-three days were to be given to Supply, they might not very likely come to a common-sense understanding. But I do not know that they would. It appears to me in any case that such an arrangement would be liable to break down on the smallest provocation, and at the will of the smallest body of recalcitrant Members. And, therefore, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's method is doomed to failure. Until some alternative proposals are put forward for bringing Supply to an end, it seems to me that the plan before the House needs very little defence.

said he thought the right hon. Gentleman had treated the Amendment rather hardly. It was not so illogical as he seemed to suggest. What had been resolved was that not more than twenty days should be allotted before the 5th of August. He attached a great deal of importance to the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had argued that the Supply Rule would be no use unless the automatic closure on the last two days was continued, but that was not his (Mr. Lough's) opinion. He, on the contrary, considered that the retention of the automatic closure at the end destroyed the Rule and reduced the whole proceedings of Supply to a farce. The Rule provided that proper arrangements should be made for the discussion of Supply; that a certain time should be allotted to it—that the House should give to Supply one day in each week, and get what discussion they could out of it. That was a great arrangement to make, but unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman was not content with that. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to make his position sure, and therefore had put in that at ten of the clock this automatic guillotine should fall upon all Supply. It was in endeavouring to make his position secure that the right hon. Gontleman had failed.

said the House had already decided, rightly or wrongly, that twenty days should be given to Supply, those days to be before the 5th of August, and therefore the argument of the hon. Gentleman was clearly irrelevant.

The words passed were "Not more than twenty days before the 5th of August."

No, no—" Twenty days, being days before the 5th of August."

said the right hon. Gentleman had asked what alternative suggestion could be made to the automatic closure of Supply. The answer to that was that the subject was one for investigation by a Committee. The existence of this means of bringing all Supply to an end at a definite hour of the clock had reduced the whole procedure of Supply to a farce. This was a very great change, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that there was some ground for what had been said in every quarter of the House with regard to it. The present proposal was in such a form that it was impossible to take the opinion of the House upon a single Vote. The Rule provided that each class—Navy, Army, and Civil Service—should be taken, as it were, at a single blow. The Civil Service Estimates amounted to £38,000,000, and were divided into seven classes; but all that was to be put from the Chair was that all outstanding Votes in Glass "1," or whatever it might be, should be taken. It was impossible, even by voting, to express an opinion on anything when the Question was put in that way. The same thing would occur with regard to the Navy and the Army Estimates. This procedure had no sanction of precedent behind; it was not the practice that had been adopted for years past; and for his part, he thought it was the most foolish that had ever been suggested. It was most unfair of the right hon. Gentleman to ask what alternative could be suggested. An alternative could not be suggested in a moment. The clause should be struck out and the whole thing referred to a Committee. The Irish Estimates were closured just in the same way, and the Irish Estimates stood in a somewhat different position. Although the expenditure had greatly increased so far as Great Britain was concerned, the population and prosperity had increased, and the necessities of the country had also increased. But with regard to Ireland, that was not so. There was a great increase in expenditure, as in Great Britain; but everything else had gone the opposite way. In Ireland the expenditure was increasing, but the country, so to speak, was getting smaller: half the population had gone.

pointed out that the question before the House was not the growth of expenditure, but how, after the twenty-three days, the business of Supply should be wound up.

submitted that the arguments he was enunciating had not been put to the House before.

The point is that they are irrelevant to the present question.

said he would, in that case, not pursue them. He thought the automatic closure was the vice of the whole Rule. He was not prepared at this moment to suggest an alternative, but he considered that the Rule as it stood was objectionable, and every Member who had considered the Rule in that way ought to protest against it.

observed that these two paragraphs were in their essence entirely new. Was there any necessity for altering the Rule that had been in operation since 1896, to make it more drastic by the addition of these two paragraphs? He submitted not. Last year the Government, without the slightest difficulty, succeeded in persuading the House to vary the Sessional Order by the adoption for that year of this procedure. Therefore, it had been proved by demonstration and experience that the Government did not require these two paragraphs, because if there were particular pressure in any year they could always do as they did last year. The variation was most disastrous. It resulted in twenty-six Votes being passed by one Resolution; ninety-six Votes being got rid of by ten Resolutions; and £67,700,000 of public money being voted without any discussion whatever. These two paragraphs, if passed, would embody the most outrageous view of Parliamentary procedure. The object of "Supply" was, of course, to discuss the subject of the Votes, and if they were taken in classes that could not be done. Suppose the House were told: "There is no time for discussion; we must call upon you to vote "—then common sense would suggest that they should at least vote upon each subject separately. By one Question being put upon a whole class, Members might be driven, in order to oppose a Vote with which they did not agree, to oppose also a Vote with which they had no quarrel. If they were to take, as was the case in the previous year, ninety-six Votes and swallow them as a whole, why not take all the Votes together and put them in one question from the Chair? He considered these two paragraphs represented a most outrageous attempt on the part of the Government toget rid of the business of Supply by getting a Vote without allowing the House any voice whatever in it. The alternative he would suggest would be to carry out the Sessional Order as it was now, and as it appeared in the Order Book of the House. That was bad enough, but it did allow the House to have a voice. Therefore, if the hon. Member went to a division, he should feel bound to support him. His object was not to prolong the discussion, but, if the House were to have them, to make these Rules as good as possible. If the Government were determined to adhere to the Rule as it stood, the responsibility, blame, and discredit must rest with them and the pliant followers who supported them. The merit of the proposal he had intended making was that it would have made the paragraph identical with the present condition of the Sessional Order; but as he was not at all desirous of multiplying Amendments or divisions, he would take the opportunity, on the present Amendment, of voting for the excision of these two paragraphs.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had stated with perfect accuracy that there were only three methods open to him for the purpose of winding up Supply, viz., the taking of all outstanding Votes with or without a single division, the taking of the outstanding Votes in separate classes, or a return to the system which existed from 1896 to last year. Of those three methods, the right hon. Gentleman had chosen the worst. There were two objects the Government should desire to attain—first, to secure the judgment of the House upon each individual Vote, and secondly, to secure that judgment within a reasonably short time. The Leader of the House anticipated that if a division were taken upon each outstanding Vote, the second object would be altogether sacrificed; but it appeared that under the present proposal the opportunity of the House to express its judgment would be sacrificed just as much as it would be if all the outstanding Votes were put together. Under the latter arrangement, Members would at any rate be saved the trouble of marching through the Lobby ten times. Unless each individual question were put from the Chair, the division was certain to be a mere Party vote. He should certainly support the excision of these two paragraphs. The House could then either go back to the position in which they were from 1896 to 1901, or make a new proposal to take all outstanding Votes in one division. For himself, he would have preferred to go back to the old system. During the five years it was in existence, no unreasonable time was wasted in divisions, and Members had an opportunity of expressing an opinion which, while it might be adverse to their own Party, would be in conformity with their own views on the subject. That opportunity would be altogether lost under the present proposal, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, if his fears as to a protracted period of divisions were serious, to cut the Gordian knot, and adopt the alternative system of taking all the outstanding Votes in one division.

said that Members must face the facts of the case. The House of Commmons was in such a condition that no Government, however great its majority, or however preponderatingly the sense of the House might be in its favour, would ever be able to get its Estimates through at all unless it had some such, power as was here proposed. The right hon. Gentleman had asked for an alternative. All he would say on that point was that, until means were adopted to stop or control the making of dilatory speeches in all parts of the House, it would be impossible to conduct the business of the House without some stringent Rule such as that now being criticised, and which led to the unfortunate results which all deplored. That being the position, he should support the Government on the present occasion.

thought nothing struck the coutry more vividly than the fact that so many millions of money were passed without a word of discussion at the close of the session; and when attention was called to the increased expenditure of the country, it was largely put down to the use of the closure. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to work out some alternative to this proposal. He had passed over somewhat lightly the suggestion that a Committee should consider this matter, because certainly the present system was the worst possible The Leader of the House had said it was a question cither of having the closure, or of discussing matters until utter weariness supervened. Sometimes, however, wren matters were discussed until the Minister was weary, a concession was made; but even that would now be impossible. He did not agree that the House should go back to the system of voting on each individual Vote. It was intolerable that the House should be called upon to keep passing through the Lobbies in that way, and it was well known that many Members came down simply with the intention of taking part in a number of these divisions in order to secure a decent average of appearances in the division lists. That was not conducting the business of the House of Commons in a proper or respectable way, and he would much prefer that at the end of the session all outstanding Votes should be lumped together, and put at once. An incidental advantage of this plan would be that an additional hour, at least, might be devoted to discussion.

had more sympathy with the suggestion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn than with the speech just delivered. It would not be at all necessary for each individual Vote to be divided upon. He certainly had a very strong objection to voting for or against the Votes as a whole. There might be matters of which he was in favour, together with others to which he was opposed; and to give such a vote was utterly illogical and absurd. The system of automatic closure was originally applied to a number of clauses in the Bill in 1893; but, while it was all very well to apply the system to Certain clauses in a Bill which had been discussed on Second Reading, it was quite a different thing, and a much more obnoxious proceeding, to apply it to Votes in Supply which had not been discussed at all. If the right hon. Gentleman desired an alternative, the suggestion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn would meet the difficulty. The automatic closure and the voting of Supply in classes could not be defended in reason or common sense. It was not in accordance with the power which this House ought to have in the last resort, when further discussion was impossible, of offering the only protest they could offer against any particular item without voting against a whole class.

said this Rule had been in operation for six years, and the present proposal, making a radical alteration, was never in the original Rule, and was never put into force except as an emergency proposal last year. And what was the emergency? On the 7th of August last year, the First Lord of the Treasury said the House was in the extraordinary position that on the following Thursday there would remain ninety-seven Votes which had not been discussed. He said that rumours had appeared in the newspapers that it was the intention of the Nationalist Members to divide upon every one of those ninety-seven Votes, and the right hon. Gentleman calculated that if this course were persisted in, it would interfere with the entertainment at Blenheim. That, from the point of view of the Leader of the House, was an "emergency," and the House spent five hours carrying this proposal through the House. The result was that they had seventeen or eighteen divisions on the Thursday, instead of ninety-seven. There was no foundation whatever for the rumour that the Irish Members intended dividing ninety-seven times, and throughout the working of the Rule the Irish Party had systematically divided only against the Votes to which they objected, and they had never availed themselves of the right to divide against every Vote. That was the true and honest history of the origin of this extraordinary proposal, which never before entered into the mind of a Minister, except as an emergency proposal last year. Under this Rule hon. Members, if they wished to vote against any particular Vote, would be compelled to vote against the whole class, although they might be in favour of every other item in the Vote but one. It would be quite as fair to put the whole balance of Supply not disposed of in one lump sum and vote it in that way; for that would be a more rational course than offering hon. Members the hypocritical pretext of an opportunity of voting upon each class. The First Lord of the Treasury had challenged them to produce some other alternative. He was irreconcilably opposed to the automatic closure. The right hon. Gentleman told them that there were three courses open to them—first, to revert to the old method of voting on each individual Vote; second, to accept his present suggestion; and third, to vote the whole balance of the money of the year in one lump sum. Of all those three courses, the right hon. Gentleman had taken distinctly the worst. He thought they ought to go back to the old method, which would preserve to them the right of giving their judgment upon each individual item of Supply. Failing that, he should much prefer that at midnight on the last Supply day the Chairman should put the whole balance of the Votes in one lump sum, and then they would not be put to the idiotic performance of going through ten divisions which were perfectly meaningless. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford spoke about the necessity of stopping dilatory speeches, but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman opposite, himself, had been behind in that respect. They had no legislation or Votes now which were anything like so contentious and difficult to pass as those which used to be submitted to the House year's ago; and yet the Ministers of those days, with larger schemes to deal with, and greater difficulties in the way of obstruction—for they had no closure—did not need any of these special Rules. He himself once spoke for three and a half hours, but he had not done that in recent times. There was no closure, and no power of bringing speeches to a conclusion, in those days; and yet Ministers did not raise this argument as to the impossibility of getting Supply through, and they did not make these enormous invasions into the rights of the House. He believed those invasions were due not to dilatory speeches, becfause they had enormously decreased, nor to the spirit of obstruction, which had been greatly mitigated; but they were due to the fact that hon. Members were infinitely more anxious for their ease and comfort than those who constituted the House of Commons when he first came into it; and the. Ministers and the Whips of those days would have turned a deaf ear to the complaints which had given rise to the present proposals.

said he wished to corroborate the statement of his hon. friend that the Irish Members had no intention of forcing on the House any vexatious divisions last year. Nothing was farther from their thoughts. He also corroborated the statement that speeches were now a great deal shorter than in former days. There was not now that wish for prolonged debate which previously existed. The Government had already sufficient powers for bringing discussion to a close. If the Government had a majority, they would always be able to attain what they reasonably proposed. If any Government proposed at the end of a session to do by sessional Order what they now proposed to do by Standing Order, their majority would support them. His hon. friend the Member for North Cork had told the House what would happen if they adopted this Standing Order. By the system proposed, the House would be compelled to vote upon a whole batch of questions, some of which they approved of, while they disapproved of others. What was the present state of things with regard to Supply? It was notorious that there were many important Votes which were never discussed. Were they to be told that if the Government did not care to put these down at an early stage of the session, when they could be discussed, they were never to be discussed at all? He thought the Government had failed to make out a case for this Standing Order.